3882. Adulteration and misbranding of mincemeat.   U. S. v. The W. H. Marvin Co.   Plea of?
nolo contendere.   Fine, $35 and costs.   (P. & D. No. #69.   I. S. No. 10101-d.)
On January 17, 1913, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Ohio,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court of the?
United States for said district an information against The W. H. Marvin Co., a corpora??
tion, Urbana, Ohio, alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and?
Drugs Act, on September 1, 1911, from the State of Ohio into the State of Minnesota,?
of a quantity of an article purporting to be mincemeat which was adulterated and mis-?
branded. The product was labeled: (On carton) "Gopher Brand (Device: picture of?
gopher) Mince Meat prepared for Foley Bros. & Kelly, St. Paul, Minn. Guarantee:?
This Mince Meat is guaranteed to meet the requirements of the National Pure Food?
Law enacted June 30, 1906, and is composed of the following articles: Meat, raisins,?
currants, apples, sugar, salt, spices, flour, and fruit juices. The Meat used in this?
Mince Meat is U. S. inspected and passed at an establishment where inspection is?
maintained under the Act of Congress June 30, 1906.    12 ozs. net."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following results:
Protein (N X 6.25) (per cent)?
 1. 68
Fat (per cent)?
 0. 25
Microscopic examination: Approximately 0.1 per cent meat present.?
No suet found.
1914.]	SEE VICE AND BEGTJLATOKY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	117
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that a?
certain substance, to wit, a food product containing but a trace of meat, that is to say,?
0.1 per cent of meat, was substituted for what the article of food by its said label and?
brand purported to be, namely, mincemeat containing a substantial amount of meat.?
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that the label?
and brand thereon bore statements regarding the article of food and the ingredients?
and substances contained therein, which said statements, to wit, "Mince Meat"?
* * * "Composed of the following articles": "Meat * * *," and "The meat?
contained herein has been inspected and passed at an establishment where Federal?
inspection is maintained," were false, misleading, and deceptive, in that said state??
ments purported and represented the article to be a mincemeat containing a sub??
stantial proportion of meat, whereas, in truth and in fact, the article of food contained?
but a trace, that is to say, 0.1 per cent of meat. Misbranding was alleged for the?
further reason that the article of food was labeled and branded as aforesaid so as to?
deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that said label and brand was calculated and?
intended to convey the impression and create the belief that the article of food was a?
product containing a substantial amount of meat, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did?
not contain a substantial amount of meat, but contained only a trace, that is to say,?
0.1 per cent of meat.
On October 28
1913, the defendant company entered a plea of nolo contendere to the?
information and the court imposed a fine of $25, with costs of $15.20.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, February 18, 1914.